On 08/14/2012 12:46 PM, Robert T. Short wrote:
On 08/14/2012 10:43 AM, Michael D Godfrey wrote:
On 08/14/2012 12:39 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
One last thing in the source tree reorganisation. Can we rename
src/ to interp/?
- Jordi G. H.
I vote yes.:-)
So if we are going to make descriptive names, why not really get
descriptive - interpreter instead of interp, libfortran instead of
libfort, etc.? Long names inflict minor inconvenience I suppose, but
shortened names seems so, well, FORTRAN and 1960.
An emphatic "no" on that idea. I go with historic precedent. The
reason these condensed names came about is that it cuts down on
keystrokes and length of names. The latter was important in 1960 when
memory and screen size was limited, but the former point on keystrokes
still holds. I realize there is tab-completion for a lot of things
these days, but still there is benefit to adhering to convention.
"src" is a common condensation in the linux tree. "usr", "src", "etc"
are ingrained symbols that make a programmer efficient, just like
memorized control sequences for a favorite editor. It doesn't mean
much to someone who's not a programmer at heart and just pecks around
on the keyboard, but for folks who do programming 24+/7+ it makes a
difference. (I'm not one them, but hold that view out of deference.)
Along that same lines, I would avoid spaces in directories for sure.
Also avoid directory names that have several letters in common at the
front, such as "interp-core" and "interpfcn". Having such things makes
tab completion or searching clumsy at times. If the "interp" must be a
commonality, my feeling is to then make a directory "interp" with
subdirectories "core" and "fcn". Most of all, be consistent. For
example, "corefcn", "interp-core", "interpfcn" has some
inconsistencies in the sense that
1) Some directories have hyphenation, some don't.
2) The "fcn" is almost a redundancy, unless the implication is that
there is some function in Octave called "core" and some function
inside Octave called "interp". Otherwise, if it just means inside the
directory are some functions related to "core", for example, then what
else would the programmer think is in there if it were just "src/core"?
3) There's "corefcn", there's "interpfcn", and then there's a
combination of the two "interp-core". Perhaps that's correct, but on
first read it makes one pause.
Dan